iTunes creator Jeff Robbin, who also had a hand in developing the iPod and …

Apple has insisted on calling its Apple TV set-top box a "hobby," even though the most recent version appears to be selling well. But Steve Jobs said shortly before his death that he had "finally cracked" a way to make TVs as simple and elegant as the iPhone or iPad. And the talent he trusted to see that task through is reportedly none other than Jeff Robbin, the same software engineer Apple brought on in 2000 to build iTunes.

Jobs told author Walter Issacson during an interview for his recently released biography that he wanted to make using a TV as simple as he had made using a smartphone or music player. “I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,” he told Issacson. “It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud. It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine.”

“I finally cracked it,” Jobs said.

Rumors have been circulating for years that Apple would ditch its separate set-top box strategy and instead build an integrated TV set with Apple TV functionality built right in. Those rumors, however, were largely circulated by analysts and weren't considered serious by most observers. Now, though, it appears that Jobs may have admitted to working on such a project after all.

That admission seems further supported by a report from Bloomberg published Monday that the man leading the project at Apple is software engineer Jeff Robbin. Robbin developed the SoundJam MP MP3 jukebox software, which Apple bought in 2000 to form the basis of iTunes. Robbin was hired to transform his SoundJam code into the media syncing and playback juggernaut we know and love/hate today. Robbin was also involved in the development of the iPod as well as the iTunes Store, so it makes sense that he would be tapped to create a new interface to change TV as we know it.

Exactly which puzzle Jobs and Apple may have "cracked" isn't clear yet, but we believe it could be connected to the long-rumored TV subscription service that Apple is believed to have been working on since late 2009. iTunes TV content has always been pay-to-play, costing a few bucks per episode, though you could get a discount by ordering a whole season of a particular show at once. Apple looked to be trying to work out a deal with major networks to offer a subscription service—much cheaper than the typical cable bill—that would allow Apple TV users to stream whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted.

According to the Wall Street Journal, CBS and Disney were giving the plan serious consideration, but no deal had been struck at the time. Unfortunately, incumbent cable companies have likely done everything in their power to keep such a deal from happening.

A source speaking to Bloomberg claimed that Apple's solution may also involve tapping in to multiple services. Instead of checking Netflix, a cable service, Hulu, or iTunes, users would simply search for the show they wanted and the device would access the content from the most convenient source.

Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster insists that Apple already has prototype models in the works, according to his sources within Apple's supply chain. He told investors in a research note this week that Apple could introduce a TV set by next year, or perhaps as late as 2013. He also suggested that such a device would include Siri to track down shows to watch and iCloud support to access a variety of media without the need for local storage.

103 Reader Comments

Hopefully Apple will be able to do something in this arena, but exactly like what happened with Google enabled devices (GoogleTV) the cable companies and content providers are scared shitless of stuff like this.

"A source speaking to Bloomberg claimed that Apple's solution may also involve tapping in to multiple services. Instead of checking Netflix, a cable service, Hulu, or iTunes, users would simply search for the show they wanted and the device would access the content from the most convenient source."

So basically they're just adding a redesigned Clicker.tv from the Chrome browser that also taps into Netflix/iTunes to AppleTV and then sticking it in the back of a tv? If these reports are anything near true..

Many cable co's and big distributers wont buy in. This is basically going to be aTV with built in media streaming device. I have a WD unit which is easy to use, and Samsung TVs have similar easy to use features as well.

They want to mass market what Boxee/XMBC already does. With more legitimate sources. But even now, Hulu blocks access to specific devices (Boxee IIRC) because the content providers don't want the content on anything but a computer.

It makes no sense, and shows how fucked up the industry is.

Quote:

Does anything Apple support Cablecard yet?

No, but that is the issue, they don't want the content to come from traditional broadcast cable sources, they want it to all come from a variety of IP sources, most of which have nothing to do with cable companies.

Hopefully Apple will be able to do something in this arena, but exactly like what happened with Google enabled devices (GoogleTV) the cable companies and content providers are scared shitless of stuff like this.

If this is the route that Apple takes, you can be sure that Apple is working out content deals before hand. Apple may not like the studios, but they realize that they are a necessary evil. Look at the iTunes stores' (Music/TV/Movie) deals and even the deal with iTunes match. I'd be willing to bet that Google made no deals nor got any assurances that the content wouldn't be pulled/rendered inaccessible from GTV.

I think when Job's said "I've finally cracked it." I think he was referring to the providers. The TV & interface, while important, are inconsequential and downright useless without content. Anyway, just look at ATV (the standalone box) & iOS for inspiration. It's not hard to imagine how a fully integrated Apple TV would operate.

"A source speaking to Bloomberg claimed that Apple's solution may also involve tapping in to multiple services. Instead of checking Netflix, a cable service, Hulu, or iTunes, users would simply search for the show they wanted and the device would access the content from the most convenient source."

This is basically what GoogleTV does now. They got knee-capped by Hulu, NBC, ABC, etc by blocking it. Hopefully if Apple can get the content providers to open up, Google can get access as well.

They want to mass market what Boxee/XMBC already does. With more legitimate sources. But even now, Hulu blocks access to specific devices (Boxee IIRC) because the content providers don't want the content on anything but a computer.

It makes no sense, and shows how fucked up the industry is.

Quote:

Does anything Apple support Cablecard yet?

No, but that is the issue, they don't want the content to come from traditional broadcast cable sources, they want it to all come from a variety of IP sources, most of which have nothing to do with cable companies.

Well, so long as I want to want to watch my local sports teams live, I will probably have to have cable TV service. And, as long as I have cable TV service, I don't want to have to buy shows again on iTunes or put up with Hulu's spotty video quality. I have to imagine there are a lot of other people in the same boat as me.

They tell me iTunes runs better on OS X than it does in Windows. I couldn't weigh in on that, but on the tertiary machine I use for iTunes (not as a player for the most part, but simply because you need it to get podcasts listed in the iTunes podcast listings), it significantly sludges up a once-sprightly machine. As soon as you boot up, there are big chunks of iTunes already running, sucking down resources without doing anything productive.

They want to mass market what Boxee/XMBC already does. With more legitimate sources. But even now, Hulu blocks access to specific devices (Boxee IIRC) because the content providers don't want the content on anything but a computer.

It makes no sense, and shows how fucked up the industry is.

Quote:

Does anything Apple support Cablecard yet?

No, but that is the issue, they don't want the content to come from traditional broadcast cable sources, they want it to all come from a variety of IP sources, most of which have nothing to do with cable companies.

...except for the network. That's the part that gets gloriously glossed over in these types of discussions.

You're still using cable. You're just trying to bypass the people that own the fiber. You're trying to cut out the middlemen and that's just not going to work because they are a physical monopoly with no regulation to speak of.

They tell me iTunes runs better on OS X than it does in Windows. I couldn't weigh in on that, but on the tertiary machine I use for iTunes (not as a player for the most part, but simply because you need it to get podcasts listed in the iTunes podcast listings), it significantly sludges up a once-sprightly machine. As soon as you boot up, there are big chunks of iTunes already running, sucking down resources without doing anything productive.

It does run much better. It is the same UI abomination but even on low end Macs it doesn't bother the rest of the machine.

The iTunes UI team should be locked in a basement until they can recite, from memory, the entire Human Interface Guidelines manual for both OS X and Windows.

...If it has a built in next gen games console and TiVo functionality, I'll take it!...

I don't think an integrated games console would work unless you mean the ability to play the casual games that are available on iTunes.

Plus, most consoles are sold cheaper than it actually costs to make them. The company then makes their money back on software and accessories. I don't see Apple willing to do that and if they do, then I see one expensive TV on the market.

Integrating features into a usable product for most people is a very valuable feature, and it is arguably the most important feature in product development.

Saying that Apple is "only" integrating stuff that has been available for a while is missing completely what is important and what is not important. A long feature list is essentially very short if normal people can't use most of those features.

TVs right now are terrible products. They are basically the same as they were in the 50s. The little widgets or XMBC integrations are all hard to use and fragmented. The TV market now resembles phones pre-iPhone.

It would be great to have an iOS TV that integrates with all my purchased media, cloud storage, dvr scheduling, and itunes store with lots of available content.

As far as content, Apple is different from Netflix or the free products. They have the size, clout, and paying customers to influence content providers, just as they did in the music industry. They can get the deals they want to make a useful consumer product much more easily than Netflix can. TV viewership is going down just as CD sales are going down. Apple is the only big player with the wherewithal to save content providers.

Plus, most consoles are sold cheaper than it actually costs to make them.

I don't know about the other manufacturers but the Xbox 360 through several hardware revisions and process optimizations is sold at a profit on hardware. IIRC it is something like 60-70% less the manufacture then the original.

As far as cutting out providers from traditional revenue streams, they've already done that in music, and they have done that with phone contracts as well as stuff like free iMessages.

Apple is dragging markets forward regardless of the belly aching of the entrenched players. That's what Apple brings that others can't. Hopefully they can continue to do so without the most skilled negotiator in Silicon Valley at their helm.

I am always amused (no longer shocked) by the Dbags/haters who respond to Apple articles, some earlier on, publicly cheering the apparent escalation of Steve Jobs terrible cancer. Here we have more idiots proclaiming that whoever developed itunes should be "taken out and publicly flogged", etc.Further, we hear from morons who liken this new tv project to Netfix streaming, "Apple is going to reinvent Netfix streaming?"...Yes, I can see how the abundant similarities would confuse an imbecile, but lets just suffice it to say that an all-in-one unit, equipped with Siri and icloud connected, costing less than the likes of Time Warner Cable, complete with big studio CURRENT shows, movies, games, and built by APPLE etc...would be slightly preferable to the current 4 decent movies that Netflix offers via their stream. Get out from behind your deflector screens and have a life.

Many cable co's and big distributers wont buy in. This is basically going to be aTV with built in media streaming device. I have a WD unit which is easy to use, and Samsung TVs have similar easy to use features as well.

Apple will get lost in this ultra competitive market. TVs are cheap.

Many telecoms/record labels and big distributors wont buy in. I have a Nokia that is easy to use, and Palm/Windows Mobile PDAs have similar easy to use features as well.

Apple will get lost in this ultra competitive market. Phones/MP3 players are cheap.

I am always amused (no longer shocked) by the Dbags/haters who respond to Apple articles, some earlier on, publicly cheering the apparent escalation of Steve Jobs terrible cancer. Here we have more idiots proclaiming that whoever developed itunes should be "taken out and publicly flogged", etc.

I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but I see no hatery going on here. iTunes is awful, it started out being a nice simple UI that has turned into a bloated monster, that is a fact, and it's even worse on windows then OSX.

I am always amused (no longer shocked) by the Dbags/haters who respond to Apple articles, some earlier on, publicly cheering the apparent escalation of Steve Jobs terrible cancer. Here we have more idiots proclaiming that whoever developed itunes should be "taken out and publicly flogged", etc.Further, we hear from morons who liken this new tv project to Netfix streaming, "Apple is going to reinvent Netfix streaming?"...Yes, I can see how the abundant similarities would confuse an imbecile, but lets just suffice it to say that an all-in-one unit, equipped with Siri and icloud connected, costing less than the likes of Time Warner Cable, complete with big studio CURRENT shows, movies, games, and built by APPLE etc...would be slightly preferable to the current 4 decent movies that Netflix offers via their stream. Get out from behind your deflector screens and have a life.

Boxee in its prime did this seamlessly in a beautiful way. Back when they were able to stream Hulu content, you just plugged in a drive, it indexed the file names, organized it for you, slapped the box art on it, and you could navigate all your shows. If you had the media locally, it would play it, but if it was only available online, it played that instead. Of course, that didn't list after all.

If the Apple TV supports good video-over-air and does AirPlay between any device on the network and your TV then that would be pretty sweet. I think it does AirPlay for iPads and iPhones, but seeing it also do games and stuff from the Mac would be nice (with low latency). Probably tons of engineering issues with that at the moment though.

So should we look forward to a date in the future when former politicians write op-eds decrying the "Free ride" of Apple for sending content? Or will they still be the golden child and get a free ride from the lobbyists?

I don't think Apple is totally lost here. But I think this is an uphill battle of major proportions, much larger then the mobile market. It is more akin to the PC market. Apple is a niche (although premium) player in the PC arena. Likewise, X-box and other game consoles are already in this space (and well established) If someone owns a game console that does this reasonably well will they be willing to get an "iTV" to do the same thing? Maybe. Depends on what you really get. Is it a compellingly better experience? Is it something that my cable / fios / satellite / game console already gives me?

The sources everyone wants are diverse - local news and weather, sports, custom networks (someone in your house watch Oprah?) , not to mention DDs and BRay. Oh, and the videogame console of choice.

Apple cannot pull another "iPod/iTunes" and simply tell people sorry, my way or the highway. They'll choose the highway. The first step is to sneak into living rooms disguised as a disc player. Failing that, the device should at least play discs on my PC or Apple OSX. Myself, I may give up discs when either (a) they stop making them or (b) online content becomes un-DRM'ed and/ or (c) stupidly cheap, Meanwhile, I have everything from Snow White to Gone With The Wind to Lord of The Rings on disc. Why would I pay to see them again when I own them, or go through a rip&convert marathon to get a worse experience than disc? Their current TV product does not even play discs- the general comment I hear is "what the heck is it for anyway?" My Wii does netflix, You Tube and browsing, do I need another toy?

The next problem is that they have to replace my nerve control central - at this time, it's the big amp which also acts as an HDMI switch. They need this because the device that controls access to the TV-in gets all the attention. Then, it has to become the master controller for all the other devices... Basically, drivers that control most popular North American (and then European)cable or satellite boxes, so as to manage the trivia of content providing over their inert carcasses. Unfortunately, many boxes do not have a nice tidy remote computer interface - so the Simple Fantasy Apple device (SFA) has to decide if it will tie itself in knots to manage, say, a set-top DVR cable box, or adopt only the basic functions (tuners) and perform DVR and channel management internally. TIVO has already explored this final fronteir, and it is not fun. Not many consumers will put up with limited choice while Apple goes out trying to snare NFL and NBA(who dat?) contracts, Oprah network contracts, the right to carry local channels, etc. - like everyone else in the game is trying to do or has already done.

Some inputs, like video games, simply need passthru.

If Apple thinks they are going to compete in the TV screen market, I suspect they have another think coming. I suspect the flat-screen TV market is becoming saturated. The technology is plateauing, except maybe size. Once you have LED (cooler), 240Hz, 1080p, thin, light- the old tube TV's they replaced lasted 10 years or more, often 20 or 30. Nobody is planning to upgrade their TV every 5 years. This is a situation the PC makers are just coming to terms with, as they face for example a collection of Windows XP users whose 10year-old Office products and internet freebies do everything most of them need to do on a computer.

Meanwhile regular TV's are becoming cheaper and cheaper while doing more and more of what Apple wants to do. The prices are viciously competitive. The set-top boxes SFA is supposed to replace are already bought, paid for, connected, and learned. The window is closing...

This only looks at one half of the HDTV problem. The other side is hooking your HDTV to your surround sound system. If Apple were to truly "crack" the problem it would also have a receiver that automagically configures your speakers (LFE, 7.1, etc....) without the need of arcane menu systems.

So basically they're just adding a redesigned Clicker.tv from the Chrome browser that also taps into Netflix/iTunes to AppleTV and then sticking it in the back of a tv? If these reports are anything near true..

Yeah, just like those other failed Apple products: iPod, basically just a redesigned mp3 player, like all the others; iPhone, only a redesigned Blackberry, and they didn't even bother to put buttons on it!; and iPad, one of those tablet things that people are staying away from in droves, because they're really just big iPods.

Basically, Apple just doesn't get it.

(Oh yeah, and Macs. What was wrong with DOS commands anyway? Macs are just more fluff from Apple for feebleminded fanbois)